PMLA attachment cannot survive after quashing of the predicate offence, because the scheduled offence is the statutory foundation.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot survive once the predicate scheduled offence has been finally quashed. The text states that, on the reasoning in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, money-laundering action under Sections 3 and 4 depends on the existence of a scheduled offence, so discharge, quashment, or acquittal of the predicate case removes the statutory foundation for attachment and related proceedings. On that basis, the attachment order was held unsustainable and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could survive after the predicate offence had been quashed and the connected PMLA proceedings had already been set aside.

Analysis: The predicate offences registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act had already been quashed by competent courts. The decision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as explained in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, treats money-laundering proceedings as dependent on the existence of a scheduled offence. Once the scheduled offence is obliterated by discharge, quashment, or acquittal, the basis for action under Sections 3 and 4 disappears. In that situation, the attachment order, being part of the same statutory chain, cannot be sustained merely on the possibility of any future revival of the predicate case.

Conclusion: The attachment order was unsustainable and was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including attachment, cannot survive once the predicate scheduled offence is finally quashed, because the existence of the scheduled offence is foundational to money-laundering action.

---